Ask the Car People.SM


The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

1067 messages,  Last post on May 04, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels

Messages Page 104 of 108

#1024 of 1067 Re: Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution [gagrice] by galonga

Oct 31, 2010 (6:28 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 31, 2010 6:03 am)
Since it is obvious you have no idea the difference between a flex fuel and an ethanol ONLY car I will have to explain it, so you stop sending wrong or unrelated data.
 
Ethanol only cars CANNOT RUN ON GASOLINE. Their compression ratios are way too high for gasoline (14 to 1).
 
That ratio takes advantage of ethanolīs huge octane number (104), in order to give MORE POWER.
 
On the other hand, flex fuel cars CAN run on gasoline because their compression ratios respect gasoline (9 to 1)
 
You CANNOT purchase an ethanol car in the US: they do not exist
 
In Brazil they were made until 2007 and now only flex fuels are made instead: a huge mistake, as flex fuel cars are nowhere near as efficient as ethanol only.
 
GOT IT NOW? ANYTHING ELSE I CAN HELP YOU WITH?

#1025 of 1067 Re: Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution [galonga] by gagrice

Oct 31, 2010 (6:44 am)

Replying to: galonga (Oct 31, 2010 6:23 am)
Brazil stopped selling PURE ethanol cars in 2007: 86% of the cars being sold today are FLEX and 0% are ethanol.
 
That is what I posted. You were trying to claim that ethanol ONLY vehicles were being sold in Brazil. That went away a long time ago. Due to the volatile sugar cane market. Flex fuel vehicles offer the consumer an alternative if the price of ethanol becomes too expensive. When Brazil brings that huge oil field off shore on line gas may become cheaper than ethanol.
 
What you continue to try and avoid is answering the simple questions. How many Miles per gallon will the cars currently sold in Brazil get on the various fuels sold in Brazil. I would say if you pay $1 per gallon for E100 and $2 per gallon for gasoline, ethanol is a good choice. There is no free lunch. Ethanol does not pack the energy that regular gasoline does. And Gasoline does not have as much energy as diesel or biodiesel.
 
A vehicle designed to run on pure alcohol should be more efficient than a flex fuel vehicle. Just not as enticing to the people that could not get ethanol back in the late 1980s for their ethanol only vehicles. A fact you seem to want to avoid.
 
From 1979 to 2005 more than 5.6 million ethanol-only automobiles and light trucks were manufactured. The success of this first ethanol push was halted in the late 80s and early 90s, when sugar prices increased sharply in the international market, causing a reduction on local ethanol production which resulted in a severe shortage of ethanol supply in the country, forcing the government to import ethanol. As consumers queued at service stations, they lost confidence in the ethanol vehicles, and car makers cut their production, thus the industry declined.
 
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/ethanol/a/ethanolinbrazil.htm

#1027 of 1067 Re: Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution [galonga] by morin2

Oct 31, 2010 (7:10 am)

galonga is an obvious shill of the ethanol industry - which survives only by massive infusion of our tax dollars while damaging our environment and our small engines, boats, and shortening the life of our automotive components.
 
I suggest that we stop feeding this troll. He seems to have inhaled too much of something - maybe ethanol.
 
The best way to handle such trolls is to ignore them.

#1028 of 1067 Re: Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution [morin2] by gagrice

Oct 31, 2010 (8:18 am)

Replying to: morin2 (Oct 31, 2010 7:10 am)
I guess you are right. It is tough educating people that think they know it all. The title of the thread should include "USA" as that is where it is a political SCAM. We don't have millions & Millions of acres of land suitable for growing Sugar Cane. We never will unless we conquer some country that does. That's an idea.

#1029 of 1067 Re: Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution [gagrice] by newdavidq

Oct 31, 2010 (9:05 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 31, 2010 8:18 am)
At the risk of inciting golonga to more inane invective I must say that Petrobras is quite happy taking a $2 billion loan to drill offshore, using US technology, for the hated petroleum products which are responsible for the world wide prosperity enjoyed by billions of humans today. And where is the $2 billion coming from?
Regards, and Adios, DQ

#1031 of 1067 Enough by pf_flyer HOST

Oct 31, 2010 (4:19 pm)

It IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Let's drop the personal edge to this now, please.

#1032 of 1067 Morass of Misinformation continues from just one source here! ? by elias

Nov 01, 2010 (5:20 am)

Replying to: galonga (Oct 30, 2010 1:21 pm)
galonga you are INCORRECT regarding the basics of the various combustion/calories/BTUs/energy-contents. And your arguments are hereby BEATEN LIKE A RENTED MULE:
 
you are INCORRECT when you state that mixing ethanol with gas lowers mpg only in certain vehicles.
These laws of physics/combustion/energy-content are hard facts. They apply to all vehicles, regardlesss of their national origin or design or fuel type.
 
Next it seems like YOU are SO VERY WRONGLY alleging that USA ethanol is somehow chemically different than BRAZILIAN ethanol! That seems unlikely, but hey, bust out the chemical formulae and knock our socks off, galonganator man. Give us some real facts instead of pseudoscientific hogwash.
 
Next you are talking about ethanol-only vehicles. I think we do enjoy ethanol-only cars here in USA , I think they are called race cars! (?) Galonga, as an esteemed co-member and a gentleman, you are proposing ethanol-only cars for the street in USA now? Please let's first confirm the abject unequivocal defeat of your arguments on the first few subjects before we try to move forward to your next round of misinformation sir?

#1033 of 1067 Agree by newdavidq

Nov 01, 2010 (5:31 am)

The purpose of these fora as I understand it is a free and open airing of ones personal views regarding the title of the forum. I assume that these discussions primarily relate to subjects in the world of automobiles in America. One of the posters attempted to introduce
some international flavor by touting another countries' approach to the use of ethanol. The title of one of his posts was "Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution'. I felt this was a bit edgy in that it attacks our use of gasoline (a remarkable substance). Ethanol / Brazil is quite different from ethanol /US. If the subject of his post had referred to ethanol instead of gasoline he would have been right on, IMHO.
I think this forum has completely exposed the folly of our approach to the use of ethanol as a motor fuel; I don't know what more can be said.
 
Regards, DQ

Messages Page 104 of 108

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement